[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Smh23, your internet honor has been challenged - do you even lift, bro?
[/quote]
Indeed it has! And I know of only one proper response to such an internet-honor challenge: pixels at dawn.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So you’re going to double down on the route of self-parody?
[/quote]
I was attempting to bait you into bragging or revealing something you didn’t want revealed. Congratulations! You gain a point for not falling into the trap.
Ah, no. Some people go gray early due to genetics and possibly stressful / hard life. Some South-East Asians will get a few gray hairs in school. I have a few gray whiskers. My point; you would look like a dickhead calling an obviously older guy “sonny”. That is what would be amusing. I wasn’t threatening to beat you up rambo. That’s something that’s come out of your head; a projection maybe. I don’t know, I’m not a psychiatrist.
[quote]
and yet you’re following up with a recess-yard insult (Goldilocks? What? Seriously: What?) and a “how much do you weigh?” invitation for an e-cock-measuring contest?
I could tell you I bench the bar, or I could tell you I bang out 400-plus for reps on a bad day. I could tell you I live in a gated community, or I could tell you I’ve been shot at and am chuckling vigorously (but not without pity) at your attempted display of e-hardness. I could tell you I’m actually Floyd Money Mayweather. I could tell you anything: It won’t matter, it will not ever matter. Because I will never post a picture or video of myself. Not with my back turned, not with my face under a potato sack.
Anywho, I hear you’re leaving. In case you haven’t left yet, it would do you good to remember that the butthurt you’re experiencing has its origin in your having cited and praised a white supremacist website and organization. In other words, this is entirely your problem. i merely observed the spectacularly obvious.[/quote]
No, I’m not “butt hurt” in the slightest I assure you. I could care less what some anonymous entities on the other side of the world said about my anonymous identity. I’m not one of these techno-narcissists. Don’t use social media ever. Could give a fuck if I ever hear from any of you again. That’s not to say some of you don’t have your charms. I’m just not invested in an online persona. I prefer the real world. This is just for kicks and I’m giving it an extended break at a minimum, not because I’m butt hurt about something someone said; but rather, because I’m getting a bit bored, have changed my lifestyle a bit recently; travel, new girlfriend etc. that’s all. So long Goldilocks.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No, I’m not “butt hurt” in the slightest I assure you. I could care less what some anonymous entities on the other side of the world said about my anonymous identity. I’m not one of these techno-narcissists. Don’t use social media ever. Could give a fuck if I ever hear from any of you again. That’s not to say some of you don’t have your charms. I’m just not invested in an online persona. I prefer the real world. This is just for kicks and I’m giving it an extended break at a minimum, not because I’m butt hurt about something someone said; but rather, because I’m getting a bit bored, have changed my lifestyle a bit recently; travel, new girlfriend etc. that’s all. So long Goldilocks.
[/quote]
That is all good to hear, actually.
^^ And that’s part of the reason I don’t jump on the legalise all drugs bandwagon. I’ve enjoyed talking with you push. Very impressed with your lifts too. I hope this doesn’t get you into trouble but I think we’re probably very close politically. Certainly closer than you are to those Northerners. 8)
EDIT: posted in wrong thread.
To bring things back to the general area of the original topic, there’s something that bothers me about the way the Obama administration has handled these negotiations.
I don’t like the idea of using the potential relief of sanctions as a bargaining chip during actual negotiations. I like the idea of lifting sanctions once we have achieved all that we set out to do. This isn’t really a problem specific to President Obama, though. It’s a problem that has occurred so frequently that the real problem is the President’s apparent inability to avoid such an obvious mistake.
We’ve seen this in the past with the way that every President from Eisenhower through Reagan appeased the Soviets at various times at various degrees during nuclear negotiations and whatnot. And virtually every single time, the Soviets were simply using deceptive measures to create the image the U.S. wanted to see. When we saw what we wanted to, it became much easier to rationalize a lifting of sanctions, an increase in trade opportunities, etc. Especially during the last 15 years or so, once the Soviets got what they wanted in order to hold back impending doom for another couple years, they went right back to the same old tricks. Then we would go to the table with them, basically tell them what image to falsify by telling them our expectations, they would comply with said deception, we would see it as real, the Soviets get economic aid, we get nothing, rinse and repeat.
The Iranians are more than likely doing the exact same thing. I don’t think this warrants Israeli or senatorial intervention into the negotiations, but that is a different issue. Whatever the Obama administration is up to, it looks on the surface like they’re making the same mistakes half a dozen other Presidents made during their administrations. The Iranians are simply telling the negotiators what they want to hear, are most likely strengthening this with falsehoods made to look real, and the negotiators take it as a reason to lift sanctions for a little while.
I don’t think that relaxation of sanctions directly increases the Iranians ability to get the bomb, but I do think they certainly help stave off whatever domestic unrest may threaten the Ayatollah’s regime. In a way, these sanctions may simply be keeping that fucking tyrant in power longer than he might be otherwise.
By the end of the late 80’s Glasnost period, the easing of sanctions ended up partially contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union, although I’m sure some out there would debate the extent to which this was a factor. Regardless, I don’t think the Obama administration is capable of the sort of nuanced application of intelligence analysis, open and secret negotiations, backdoor intelligence service coordination, economic finagling, and so forth that would be necessary to use sanctions as a legitimate tool to spark revolt against the Ayatollah. I think these things are just being used in a haphazard way that isn’t getting us any closer to our goal and it’s hampering whatever dim chance we may have of seeing legitimate revolutionary change over there.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think what he’s trying to say is that there is a pretty real double standard going on at the moment. I’m white and, as most of you know, I have an international penis, grew up in an all black neighborhood and was deliberately targeted by racist black people and assaulted fairly regularly. That trend continued when I was in the clink. And I’m not making shit up about them targeting me because I was white, they SAID they were targeting me because I was white AS THEY WERE HITTING ME… But if I said to anyone, “hey, those black guys tried to kick my ass because I’m a white guy”, NOT a fuck will be given that day.
However, if I were to (HYPOTHETICALLY) target a black person and say the same shit that they did when they were trying to kick MY ass, then it would make the national news. The president may even say, “if I had a son, he might look like the victim of the angry chicken”. The MEDIA would condemn me before all the facts came it. There would be threats on my life. Hell, black people might start burning stores in their local neighborhoods (and not be charged for any crimes) because they were just blowing off steam…
There is a DOUBLE FUCKING STANDARD going on right now and it doesn’t make me a racist to fucking see it and to feel uncomfortable by it.[/quote]
I agree with this post 100%, but this isn’t what SexMachine is trying to say. He’s said over and over what he’s trying to say, and I think thunderbolt has summarized the gist of it as accurately as SexMachine himself could, were he capable of honest introspection, however hellish an experience that may prove to be.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
To bring things back to the general area of the original topic, there’s something that bothers me about the way the Obama administration has handled these negotiations.
I don’t like the idea of using the potential relief of sanctions as a bargaining chip during actual negotiations. I like the idea of lifting sanctions once we have achieved all that we set out to do. This isn’t really a problem specific to President Obama, though. It’s a problem that has occurred so frequently that the real problem is the President’s apparent inability to avoid such an obvious mistake.
We’ve seen this in the past with the way that every President from Eisenhower through Reagan appeased the Soviets at various times at various degrees during nuclear negotiations and whatnot. And virtually every single time, the Soviets were simply using deceptive measures to create the image the U.S. wanted to see. When we saw what we wanted to, it became much easier to rationalize a lifting of sanctions, an increase in trade opportunities, etc. Especially during the last 15 years or so, once the Soviets got what they wanted in order to hold back impending doom for another couple years, they went right back to the same old tricks. Then we would go to the table with them, basically tell them what image to falsify by telling them our expectations, they would comply with said deception, we would see it as real, the Soviets get economic aid, we get nothing, rinse and repeat.
The Iranians are more than likely doing the exact same thing. I don’t think this warrants Israeli or senatorial intervention into the negotiations, but that is a different issue. Whatever the Obama administration is up to, it looks on the surface like they’re making the same mistakes half a dozen other Presidents made during their administrations. The Iranians are simply telling the negotiators what they want to hear, are most likely strengthening this with falsehoods made to look real, and the negotiators take it as a reason to lift sanctions for a little while.
I don’t think that relaxation of sanctions directly increases the Iranians ability to get the bomb, but I do think they certainly help stave off whatever domestic unrest may threaten the Ayatollah’s regime. In a way, these sanctions may simply be keeping that fucking tyrant in power longer than he might be otherwise.
By the end of the late 80’s Glasnost period, the easing of sanctions ended up partially contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union, although I’m sure some out there would debate the extent to which this was a factor. Regardless, I don’t think the Obama administration is capable of the sort of nuanced application of intelligence analysis, open and secret negotiations, backdoor intelligence service coordination, economic finagling, and so forth that would be necessary to use sanctions as a legitimate tool to spark revolt against the Ayatollah. I think these things are just being used in a haphazard way that isn’t getting us any closer to our goal and it’s hampering whatever dim chance we may have of seeing legitimate revolutionary change over there.[/quote]
I think that about hits the nail on the head. Well said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36431160
To the average Iranian this isn’t really news, it’s what they been saying ever since he was allowed back in to the country.